There is a framed certificate in my office that recognizes that Fred Bidwell was awarded an honorable mention for a photograph exhibited in the Cleveland Museum of Art’s 1976 May Show. It is signed by Sherman Lee, then the Museum’s director. I can’t remember a thing about that photograph. But now, by a twist of fate, I am sitting in what would have been Lee’s office and find that it seems to have become necessary for every new Cleveland Museum of Art director to weigh in on why the Museum will not revive the May Show.

 

At this annual, juried show, open to artists of Northeast Ohio, a combination of the Museum’s curatorial staff, and guest curators, would decide, to the joy of some and the despair of many, who were the winners and losers of the Cleveland art world each year. The May Show was the main event for local artists for almost 75 years before it was finally canceled by director Bob Bergman in 1993. I am the fifth person in the director’s position to reject the revival of the May Show, and shortly there will be a new director who will have that opportunity.

 

Although I can’t speak for the next director, I believe there are some very practical reasons he or she will not be anxious to bring back the May Show–time, space, and money. Doing a juried show properly is an enormous logistical effort involving taking in, organizing, evaluating, and hanging hundreds of art objects–and then de-installing and returning them after the exhibition closes. The Museum staff did a marvelous job of this (and recognition should go to now-retired curator Tom Hinson, who was the May Show mastermind for many years), but at a huge cost.

 

The out-of-pocket expense for the May Show was high, but the opportunity cost of the event was even more significant. Every year the juried May Show was on the exhibition schedule was a year we did not have a curated show of a leading artist, masterworks borrowed from other major museums around the world, scholarly exhibitions that bring forward new knowledge, or shows of works in the Museum’s permanent collection that were kept in storage.

 

Notably, this opportunity cost was often at the expense of the museum’s contemporary art program. If we had used museum resources to explore contemporary art of the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, the Cleveland art community would have been incredibly enriched–and perhaps the museum would not have missed the opportunity that it did to collect the important art of that time.

 

Without question, the May Show had a positive impact and profound influence on the Cleveland art scene for most of its history. It was a point of pride for a dynamically growing town in 1917, brimming with talent but lacking dedicated exhibition spaces. In the Great Depression, sales at the May Show helped support professional artists when jobs and commercial outlets for art were scarce. I was certainly grateful for the May Show in 1976, when it seemed there were few places to show or see contemporary art in Cleveland.

 

Thirty-eight years later, however, the art scene in Cleveland couldn’t be more different. Friday evenings now feature more art openings than one could possibly attend. Perhaps the best symbol of this marvelously eclectic scene is 78th Street Studios, the art and design complex on Cleveland’s Near West Side, where everything from arts and crafts, to the art of Cleveland’s Golden Age, to the bleeding edge all mix in one big happy party on the third Friday of every month. The very existence of CAN Journal is compelling evidence that there has been revolutionary change in Cleveland’s artistic scene. A count of exhibiting member organizations in the Collective Arts Network tops 40, and they generate over 160 shows and exhibitions throughout Northeast Ohio on an annual basis.

 

I have not met a single civic leader who has not noted the importance of the arts as both a cultural and an economic force in the community. The flowering of creativity that we see in Cleveland today is certainly evidence that the arts do not need the May Show to flourish.

 

The concept of a juried art show to cull the community of artists down to a few winners seems inconsistent at a time when art lovers and collectors have so much to choose from in the local artistic landscape. In fact, I wonder if the May Show actually suppressed the growth of the local art scene for many years by selling art directly from the show, cutting out the galleries from the transaction and discouraging sales and interest in artists that did not receive the Cleveland Museum of Art imprimatur.

 

I appreciated the recognition of the May Show in 1976, but I also felt that it was stifling that it so dominated the art scene of the time. Eventually I gave up my career as an artist (perhaps my biggest contribution to the arts in Cleveland). But I suspect other, brighter lights were dimmed as well. Interestingly, there appears to have been no growth in venues for Cleveland artists from 1976 to 1993, the year of the last May Show. There were 22 venues in both of those years, according to Plain Dealer event listings.

 

This is certainly an exciting time to be an artist in Cleveland, but the art and artists of our city still need support. In order to build a healthy collecting community, fulfilling professional careers for artists and art entrepreneurs, and sustainable futures for our non-profit arts organizations, we need to encourage dialog and thoughtful art criticism. A sophisticated, self-sustaining art market requires engaged, knowledgeable collectors who are making informed choices. A vibrant creative community is made of artists who measure their success not just by local exposure, but by national and international standards. The art of Cleveland deserves to be on a world stage. To achieve that, our artistic community must engage with the world.

 

Some have interpreted the end of the May Show two decades ago as a gesture of disdain, and have assumed that the Museum’s support of local artists has been inconsistent since then. That’s simply not true, as we continue our tradition of supporting Cleveland artists with gallery space, acquisitions, and exhibitions.

 

In fact, the Museum’s engagement with the local art community has been consistently strong and deep since 1993, beginning with an invitational show in 1994, which Bob Bergman introduced as “part of an ongoing program of exhibitions designed to stimulate contemporary art making and its audience. Since then the museum has staged 19 exhibitions of Cleveland area artists and published 11 books and catalogs. In the past 14 years, the Museum has acquired over 250 objects created by Cleveland artists for our collection. Perhaps most importantly, when our East Wing opened in 2009, it included our first gallery dedicated to the art and artists of Cleveland. When our contemporary galleries were re-installed in 2011, this commitment was expanded to two galleries.

 

I am confident the Cleveland Museum of Art will continue to be one of the many thoughtful voices on the art of Cleveland–not just in May, but every month of the year.